jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (43 posts)

BREAKING: The Supreme Court Just Made Gay Marriage Legal in US

  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago

    The world is a' changin' and we're a little slow but we're tagging along.

    Read the opinion in its entirety here:
    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06 … y-marriage

    http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/26/supreme_court_legalizes_gay_marriage_here_is_the_beautiful_last_paragraph/kennedy_2.png.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.png

    1. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Good Gravy Pretty P.,  after:

      1. Pulling down of the Confederate Flag across Dixie Land
      2. ObamaCare principle given the blessing and OK by the Supreme Court
      3. Finally this bombshell from the SC, regarding gay marriage

      Lets face it Rush Limbaugh and the forces of the Right are having a bad week.

      Conservatives are always disappointed when GOP presidents appoint what they believe to be conservative jurists to the bench to only find out that once the new justice arrives and is confronted with the reality of the world around them, they grow up and realize that they have to stand with the Left. (Earl Warren is the best example) They have to put aside all the cryptic right wing ideolgy. The 6 to 3 ruling in favor of the ACA is a strong endorsement that is not going to turned around lightly.

      Could there only be 2-3 die hard rightwingers on the SC now?
      Nice to see you, as always!!!

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        This old liberal heart (okay, not that old, only 56) is feeling mighty warm today.  :-)

        1. gmwilliams profile image82
          gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          This is INDEED good news.  People have the right to marry whom they love regardless of sexual orientation.  LOVE is LOVE.

          1. AliciaC profile image96
            AliciaCposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            +1 This is great news!

            1. Castlepaloma profile image28
              Castlepalomaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Huge change, I thought pot would be 1st before gay marriage to be legal. It will be very interesting how all this translates. Only 80 countries to go, in making gay sex legal. More people are being lockup over a green plant, than anything.

              Great News, great start!!! Now just let our green people go.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image28
                Castlepalomaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                If you get caught with a joint in your mouth, make sure it's a guy.

          2. profile image60
            retief2000posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            What is love and how is it legally defined and where does it appear in the application for a marriage license? Has love ever been legally required for marriage?

      2. skperdon profile image83
        skperdonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        A person have the right to legally get married to their partner if that is their desire, and I'm happy that decision was made by the Supreme Court.

  2. Aime F profile image83
    Aime Fposted 2 years ago

    Congratulations! smile smile smile

  3. Superkev profile image86
    Superkevposted 2 years ago

    Okay, next up let's have Polygamy legalized, every argument made for gay marriage can be equally applied to plural marriage. Even Chief Justice Roberts stated so. So let's get that done, we want to be on the right side of history don't we???

    And too, based on the arguments used to support gay marriage as a right, we should also have the right to carry a concealed weapon in all 50 states and the District of Columbia as of right now.

    "Amendment XIV Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    "By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states."

    http://constitutionalrightspac.com/arti … Y1uVp.dpuf

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Hmmm, I think I've heard this argument before. 

      Same old story.  Social change is occurring and you are scared.  Now, you're conjuring up  reasons to be afraid that are unrelated to the topic at hand.  Relax, your life will not change because two people of the same sex can now get married.

      1. Superkev profile image86
        Superkevposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Scared? Hardly. I am joyous if anything, as now there is no argument to be for why others should not be treated exactly the same as gays under the law. That means Constitutional Concealed Carry in ALL 50 States as well as the District of Columbia. You cannot limit the SCOTUS interpretation simply based on the you are for gay marriage but against concealed carry.

        You want to be equal under the law? We are asking for nothing more, and there is zero argument now you can make based on the SCOTUS current interpretation of the 14th amendment. Same with Polygamy, what is your constitutional argument against that now? There is none.

        We must all be treated the same under law, so let's get on with it.

        I do wonder, however, what you will say when pedophiles bring suit arguing that this a sexual orientation no different from being homosexual and they demand to be allowed to marry 8 year old's. Gauranteed it will happen, and soon.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          See, this is just ridiculous.  Two adults in a consensual relationship being allowed to marry can in no way be compared to a pedophile inflicting pain upon a minor.  The fact that you even make such a comparison reveals you are deeply fearful, whether or not you recognize or admit it.

          1. Superkev profile image86
            Superkevposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            HAHA, there is no fear here, as much as you would love to be convinced otherwise.

            This is an argument that has been made in the past and will be made even more forcefully now. There are a number of psychologists and others who have stated outright that they feel pedophilia is as much a sexual orientation as homosexuality. Certainly NAMBLA and other pro-pedo organizations have made this argument. This is not a comparison *I* make, it's one *they* make....all the time.

            And so will the polygamists, and really, how can you make any reasonable argument against that now? There is no constitutional basis and either we have freedom of religion in this country, or we don't. So look for plural marriage coming to a city or town near you in the very near future.

            And same with concealed carry, there is zero constitutional basis now for denying that right to all citizens, in all 50 states and DC. Look for that coming your way soon as well.

            And now that gays are completely equal under the law, they must be removed from consideration in any hate crime laws forthwith. Who you sleep with or marry should not garner you special consideration under the law. An assault on you, is the same as an assault on me. We're equal, right?

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              All races are treated equally under the law, yet we still classify certain racially motivated crimes as hate crimes.  Why would that change with regard to sexual orientation?

              You're desperately reaching with the whole pedophilia angle.  It doesn't merit a response.

              Edited to add:  I don't need to be convinced that your fear is real. I'm the one who introduced the idea, remember?

              1. Superkev profile image86
                Superkevposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Ahh, I see, so because you say it, it must be true. Gotcha.

                Now, please explain how who you sleep with or marry should rate you special consideration under the law, and further to same, why should the color of your skin have the same effect?

                If I am assaulted and robbed by a black man who hates whites, let's say he is a member of the Black Panther Party for instance, is that any better or worse if the reverse is true? How? Please explain. 

                And, am I really reaching with the whole pedophilia issue?

                http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins … ZCk4ru3.99

                Please pay special attention to the text in bold. Thanks.

                "Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I am not going to explain to you the need for laws against hate crimes.  I know it would do no good.  Interpret that as you wish because I know exactly what I mean.

                  Again, pedophilia is not an alternative sexual lifestyle.  It is a crime against minors.

                  1. Superkev profile image86
                    Superkevposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Not going to, or can't? LOL

                    So, if I was assaulted and robbed by a black man, a member of the Black Panther Party let's say, and during commission of the crime he called me a honky, white devil and peckerwood as he was smashing my face and taking my watch and wallet, Should this be considered a hate crime and should this person be prosecuted with enhanced sentencing for the obvious racial bias that motivated it?

                    Why or why not?

                    Surely an intelligent person like you can answer at minimum yes or no to this.

                    PS- Apparently the Democrat Rep from Florida disagrees with your opinion on pedophilia.

                2. Credence2 profile image83
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  As for the pedophilia issue, reading the article, it appears that sexual activity that is non-consentual is still prohibited. I say that engaging in sexual activity as an adult with a minor is always by very definition, non-consentual.  Like Paul Harvey says, now its time for the rest of the story. I am not convinced that I am getting the truth from the article. Pedophilia is a crime, and pedophiles are criminals not a protected class.

                  1. Superkev profile image86
                    Superkevposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    In the quote the Democrat Congressman does make a reference to "..all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

                    Seems that he was aware of the text of the amendment and still opposed it.

      2. cam8510 profile image93
        cam8510posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Very good response, PrettyPanther

    2. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Is there a valid constitutional (non-religious) argument to ban polygamy?  Throughout history, including Christian history, polygamy (polyandry and/or polygyny) has probably been the most common form of marriage - why is it banned?

      Personally, I think that polygamy (absent a gross imbalance in the sexes) will harm society, but that is only a feeling without reason to back it.  Is there something else?

      1. Credence2 profile image83
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        That is a good question, Wilderness, so how far is too far?  Fifty years ago the issue was interracial marriage, today it is the gays, what will it be tomorrow?

        The court does not live in a vacuum and may well gauge public acceptance of practices that would have been abhorrent a generation ago.

        As for the  unianinous SC ruling in Loving vs Virginia in 1967, striking down state laws prohibition interracial marriage, was society ready for such a ruling in 1937? Society and its changing sensibilities are the driving force behind much of the Court's rulings.

        Who knows, maybe questions will arise about polygamy and while most current abhor it, perhaps the next big thing will be people tolerating, first accepting later, and utimately insisting on it as a 'right' lastly with a following over  a  broad swath of society,

        Mores change with time, so 18th century style Constitution interpretation reserved for these kinds of decisions cannot work. In the big scheme of things, it will be the people who ultimately determine that that which was once verboten is now expected and demanded. Time is allowed for people to absorb the idea, subject it to litigation in lower courts with some degree of success before the SC gets involved, this can happen over a generation or two.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Concerning interracial marriage; "was society ready for such a ruling in 1937".

          The answer is that some of society was, but the remainder insisted that they didn't like it and thus no one could participate in such activity.  We seem to be getting a little closer, though progress is very slow, to a recognition that the majority cannot (or should not) exert control over a minority for no better reason than "I don't like it", or "My god says it's wrong".

          In the big scheme of things, that's what it's always about with such morality questions; does some of the population demand the right to control actions that cause them no harm simply because they don't like those actions for themselves.  We seem to have an innate desire to control others and deny them the freedom to live as they wish, but there is a glimmer of hope as we answer such questions as interracial or gay marriage potential with a "Yes".

      2. janesix profile image61
        janesixposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I don't see anything wrong with polygamy. Any consenting adults should be able to marry in my opinion. Including brother/sister etc.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I agree, though if a society ends up with a high percentage of unmarried males (or females) I also forsee problems. 

          Brother/sister - I don't know and would have to think about that.  A high possibility of genetic defects, producing a need for society to intervene in raising and care.  Sterilization before marriage?  Seems draconian, but we know too well the results of close interbreeding.

  4. Paul Wingert profile image80
    Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago

    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12498332.png

    1. gmwilliams profile image82
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, HUG and TALK SOME SENSE into them.  LGBT people ARE here and AREN'T going anywhere.  People had better get with the program.  Societies forever change, evolve, and progress.  Societies and people who elect not to progress, soon experience atrophy.  It is sad when people refuse to change and accept the new.  I think that this is based upon fear.  After all, prejudice is based upon fear of those who are different. 
      http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12455213_f1024.jpg

      1. Castlepaloma profile image28
        Castlepalomaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Lo

 
working